- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:43:19 +0900
- To: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "public-w3proce." <public-w3process@w3.org>, timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
> On Aug 27, 2015, at 0:33 , Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote: > >> >>> My second foray [2] lead me to a Charter that was extended w/o its >>> Milestones being updated. > > ... > >> IMHO that should not be the charter - being able to look at what the group >> said it would do, and compare it with what it is doing is a pretty basic >> tool for managing expectations and balancing resource commitments. > > > Agree. Charters are a bit overloaded; one current proposed one even has a FAQ in it. It would be good to keep the “normative” text that defines the of what the WG can and cannot do from the “explanatory” text that talks about who, what, and when. The team Director/team should have no leeway to change the normative text, but at least some ability to edit the explanatory text and schedule to reflect current reality. > I actually think we should include less schedule data in the charters, but not relax on having AC approval for the schedule (i.e. a change in schedule means a re-charter). I don’t think it makes sense to predict e.g. when implementations will happen. I do think the chairs and team should predict how long they expect to take to get from the draft that the WG starts with, to CR. David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 27 August 2015 00:43:56 UTC